수년간 가공의 필요경비를 계상하고, 임대수입금액을 누락신고한 경우 부당과소신고 가산세 처분은 적법함[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap64391 ( June 19, 2015)
If the necessary expenses for processing are calculated for several years and the rental income is omitted, the imposition of unjust under-reported penalty tax is legitimate.
The plaintiffs are merely a passive under-reported case without an active purpose of tax avoidance, such as the fact that the plaintiffs included necessary expenses in the account for repair expenses without any disbursement of repair expenses or without any material supporting the spending of the repair expenses for several years, and the fact that the rental income has been continuously omitted.
2015Nu50414 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.
HongA and 1
Sung Dong Tax Office et al. 2
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap64391 decided June 19, 2015
January 15, 2016
January 29, 2016
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
A. The plaintiffs' part of the attached amount decreased among the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case is dismissed.
B. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of the global income tax of 00 won for the first term of December 1, 2013, of 209, of 00 won for the second term of 2009, of value-added tax for the second term of 2000 won for the second term of 2010, of value-added tax for the second term of 2000 won for the second term of 201, of value-added tax for the second term of 2000 won for the second term of 2011, of 00 won for the second term of 200, of value-added tax for the second term of 200 for the second term of 200, of global income for the second term of 200, of 200 for each global income tax of 200, of 200 for the second term of 200, of 201 for the second term of 200.
1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;
This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the
○ The following shall be added to “the details of imposition disposition” at the end of the sixth page:
“The Particulars of Reduction or Correction of Value-Added Tax
Year/Period portion
Classification
Original Decision
Decision of Correction
Reduction of Amount
Jinay
209.1
Tax Base
79,015,251
78,651,615
△△63,636
Amount of tax
2,255,671
2,180,472
△△5,199
209.2
Tax Base
82,593,584
82,157,220
△△△36,364
Amount of tax
2,415,360
2,327,518
△△87,832
2010.1
Tax Base
85,510,375
85,074,011
△△△36,364
Amount of tax
2,350,200
2,264,738
△△85,462
2010.2
Tax Base
86,496,433
86,060,069
△△△36,364
Amount of tax
2,403,960
2,320,906
△△△83,054
2011.1
Tax Base
85,657,155
85,293,519
△△63,636
Amount of tax
1,594,634
1,523,762
△△△70,872
< The Global Income Tax Reduction and Correction Details of Global Income Tax)
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for cancellation of the amount reduced in the separate sheet among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful and dismissed, and all of the remaining claims against the defendants should be dismissed as without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair because it is not possible to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim as to the reduced amount of the above details because of the cancellation of the disposition due to the omission of the details of reduction or correction of value-added tax added as above in the separate sheet (the judgment of the court of first instance was the result of dismissing the plaintiffs' claim as to the reduced amount of the above details as to the reduced amount of the value-added tax since the cancellation of the disposition was not made in the separate sheet). Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is to be modified as above and it is so decided as per Disposition (the plaintiff is not only the plaintiff's claim that the above plaintiffs transferred the amount of KRW 1450,000,000 to Ga on November 27, 2012 after the closing of argument to the court of first instance, but also the plaintiff's claim that the above amount was not the above 1B receipts or 4010.